On Point

Docket

Decision below (N.C. supreme court)

Question Presented:

Whether, in the context of interrogating a juvenile in a school setting, “custody” for purposes of triggering Miranda warnings is determined by a purely objective test; or includes subjective considerations such as the subject’s age and status as a special education student.

Scotusblog page

The nub of the lower court holding:

 …

Docket

Decision below (S.C. supreme court)

Questions Presented (courtesy, Scotusblog):

1) Whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration; and 2) whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Cert petition

Scotusblog page

Turner got 12 months in jail for civil contempt for willful failure to pay child support (remedial contempt,

Docket

Decision below (CTA11)

Question Presented (from cert petition):

Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search authorized by precedent at the time of the search that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

Cert petition

Scotusblog page

Fall-out from the Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 

decision below: certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; court of appeals briefs: Resp.; Reply

Issue (from Table of Cases):

Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,

State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2010AP1469, District 4, 10/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se

Following earlier unsuccessful challenges to his plea-based conviction via direct appeal and habeas, Obriecht utilizes coram nobis as an attack mechanism. He argues that his plea wasn’t knowing, and that requiring a plea as a precondition to participation in the First Offender Program violated due process. The court rejects the arguments because they don’t relate to factual error unknown at the time,

court of appeals publication orders, 10/27/10

On Point posts from this list:

2010 WI App 137 State v. Drew E. Bergwin

2010 WI App 142 Hakim Naseer v. Circuit Court for Grant County

State v. Ricardo Lopez, 2010 WI App 153 (recommended for publication); for Lopez: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The plea colloquy was deficient with respect to Lopez’s understanding of the rights waived by his no contest plea, therefore in response to his postconviction motion to withdraw plea the trial court held a hearing at which the State bore the burden of proving his understanding.

Voluntariness – Statements to Probation Officer

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Sahs: Mark S. Rosen; BiC; Resp.

Sahs’ claim that his statements to his probation officer were given under compulsion is rejected, because the premise for the claim – a DOC form cautioning that he must reveal his activities else face probation revocation –

State v. Michael A. Barahona, 2010AP1324, District 4, 10/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Barahona: Walter A. Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶14      The undisputed facts as disclosed from the record reveal the following:  (1) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle driving in the wrong direction in the eastbound lane of Campus Drive; (2) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle cross the dotted line dividing two lanes of traffic by approximately one foot and drive over that line for approximately one block when he was pulled over by Marks;

State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2010 WI App 58, review granted, 3/16/11; for Dowdy: Bryan Cahill; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Judges lack statutory authority to reduce the length of probation.

¶16      We conclude that we do not have cause to refer to legislative history or other extrinsic tools, because the plain language of Wis.